VL is about choices.......I do respect what some ppls want but to re-create another trimmed version of VL need man power. There is already standard and SOHO version. And I believe there is another request for 64-bit version. Do VL Dev. team have enough time and man power to do it?

PS: I believe VL with a less ISO size is a bonus for us all but it all depend on the creator and developer to decide. No matter what, I do enjoy the speed and friendliness of VL that it offer now.

VL is about choices.......I do respect what some ppls want but to re-create another trimmed version of VL need man power. There is already standard and SOHO version. And I believe there is another request for 64-bit version. Do VL Dev. team have enough time and man power to do it?

Well like I said, once upon a time Standard WAS the trimmed-down version. I just wanna see it get back to that!

I think given the fact soho and std have the same base, there is really not important difference between them. Of course, std is lighter than soho, the ram usage is the main diff, imho. But if you boot in tui, they are the same to me. As far as I know, a single cd distro is a small one for today standards. A 700mb download is not a very big one, (and I live in a country where internet is expensive, I connect with a UsRobotic 56k dial up modem, a nice old serial one, but I download the isos in an internet cafe for AR$ 5, US$ 1.5).One thing to think about is Xfce is getting bigger. In a 128ram box, I uninstall xfce and install fluxbox or icewm. Not too much work. You can get a slimed down VL just using the installer carefuly. An option to not install Xfce but yes X would be useful, though, if you dont have much hd space.I read a Con Kolivas interview some time ago (sorry I lost the link) where the guy said basicly there is no good desktop today. And I think he is right. Think about it, the systems are not essentially better than 10 years ago, and the hardware needed to run it is 10 times bigger. A nice example is Vista, it is not essentially different than w98 (but for the tons of drivers included) and the sys required is 32 times bigger.IMHO, In that scenario, VL is a terrific os, giving a lot of features with a very reasonable list of hardware requeriments. Of course, it will not cover every one needs, but that is why there is puppy linux.

Logged

"There is a concept which corrupts and upsets all others. I refer not to Evil, whose limited realm is that of ethics; I refer to the infinite."Jorge Luis Borges, Avatars of the Tortoise. --Jumalauta!!

I have no interest whatever in a slimmed down VectorLinux. There already are distros that are 200 megs or less. Why should VL duplicate those? I don't think of various distros as being in competition. Whatever you're looking for, there's a Linux distro that will provide it. There's no reason one distro has to satisfy the lean and mean crowd, the eye candy crowd, the basic-but-full crowd, the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink crowd. If VL Standard is too big for you, get Damn Small Linux or Puppy or some other deliberately small distro.

The computing universe moves on. Hardware today is much more sophisticated than it was 10 years ago, or five years ago. We want that hardware to be supported, which means a larger kernel or many more modules. Graphic cards and chips are much more powerful than they used to be. Huge flat panel monitors are now affordable. Why be minimalist?

I'm not a fan of old hardware, either. My budget doesn't allow cutting edge, but I don't want to be stuck in 1999 either. Or 2003, for that matter.

I like Standard as it is now. I'm not particularly interested in having a small distro and I don't care much whether everything fits on one CD, but I do want a solid, basic system on which I can build exactly what I want and that doesn't come with KDE and/or Gnome, neither of which I like.--GrannyGeek

OK, if Vector doesn't care about being lightweight/usable on old hardware anymore, is it time to abandon the Standard/SOHO dichotomy? I don't see much point in keeping two separate distros around, otherwise.

OK, if Vector doesn't care about being lightweight/usable on old hardware anymore, is it time to abandon the Standard/SOHO dichotomy? I don't see much point in keeping two separate distros around, otherwise.

I agree, but my impression is that it takes longer to test a KDE-based distro than an XFCE- or IceWM-based one, so by having the two we get to have a "quick release" distro while we're waiting for SOHO to come out. Maybe the testers will put me right on this.

OK, if Vector doesn't care about being lightweight/usable on old hardware anymore, is it time to abandon the Standard/SOHO dichotomy? I don't see much point in keeping two separate distros around, otherwise.

VL 5.8 Standard runs just fine on my laptop (P3 450mhz, 128mb ram). The only difference from the stock installation is that I use WindowMaker instead of XFce. My "devbox" is a P3 900mhz with 256mb. And in WindowMaker RAM consumption is at about 22MB, Xfce 48MB.

In case you haven't noticed, Standard ships with lightweight apps, while SOHO ships with heavier apps. Example: I don't use OO on my computers because its like molasus. I use Abiword an Gnumeric. Just two examples.

OK, if Vector doesn't care about being lightweight/usable on old hardware anymore, is it time to abandon the Standard/SOHO dichotomy? I don't see much point in keeping two separate distros around, otherwise.

There's a difference between some users saying they don't care about lightweight and "Vector" not caring. You took 1 or 2 users comments and blew them way out of proportion

Also, AFAIR this was about the size of the distro. Just because vl 5.8 std is not as trimmed down as some people would like to have it doesn't mean 5.8 won't do a nice job on older computers. Remember that the OP wanted a small distro yet with KDE and OpenOffice? that's exactly the sort of stuff that isn't on 5.8 standard because it's meant to be light(er) weight.

There is always going to be some hardware specification that's going to be too low for VL. If you happen to have one of those boxes... that's a darn shame (for you). But on the other hand you can't build a distro that's minimal enough to run on let's say a p1 200 yet satisfies most people who don't have a dinosaur for a computer.

Quote

I agree, but my impression is that it takes longer to test a KDE-based distro than an XFCE- or IceWM-based one, so by having the two we get to have a "quick release" distro while we're waiting for SOHO to come out.

You have no idea much work has to be done to build standard (noticed the "pseudo" releases Uel has built? he built a lot more like these, and it's only sometime in the near future this will "morph" into a 5.9 beta). It is this work on which SOHO is built. Basically, SOHO is the "quicker release" of the 2, since a lot of the work has already been done for standard.

Also, it's pretty easy to "SOHOize" your standard install If needed. The other way around is probably harder.

You have no idea much work has to be done to build standard (noticed the "pseudo" releases Uel has built? he built a lot more like these, and it's only sometime in the near future this will "morph" into a 5.9 beta). It is this work on which SOHO is built. Basically, SOHO is the "quicker release" of the 2, since a lot of the work has already been done for standard.

Also, it's pretty easy to "SOHOize" your standard install If needed. The other way around is probably harder.

How does that work? I'd've thought given the greater (amount of) content, SOHO would be more tedious to put together, at least.

well, first you take Slack 12. Then you make the changes that make VL what it is (startup scripts, vasm, pkgtools-tukaani, gslapt/slapt-get etc) and make a "Dynamite" or "pseudo" (or whatever you want to call it) .iso. From that you build standard.

When it is finally "stable", you add some packages, remove some others, and you have a SOHO beta (well obviously some other stuff has to be changed too, like slapt-get's config ). Even though SOHO contains more software than std, a lot of it is part of "bulk" packages, like "kdemultimedia", "kdegraphics" etc. Those packages are pretty stable, easy to build and hardly ever have problems in them. And they are meant to be used with KDE, whereas a lot of the packages on std might have to be tweaked.

Please don't think I could do this myself (kudos to Uelsk8s for doing it), and my previous statement may be wrong, but still SOHO is easier to build from a standard version than it would be to do it from the ground up.

Obviously SOHO would be done sooner if there wasn't a standard version to build first, but this work on standard does mean less work has to be done for SOHO.

I have tried doing just that. The result is not the same as SOHO proper, and I was not as happy with the result as I am with a package assembled and tweaked by developers who know a lot more than me. I like SOHO.